Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 17:06:25 -0500 From: The Anarcat <anarcat@anarcat.ath.cx> To: Max Okumoto <okumoto@ucsd.edu> Cc: libh@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: What are are you devel on? Message-ID: <20021220220625.GD58708@shall.anarcat.ath.cx> In-Reply-To: <hfk7i51wmg.fsf_-_@multivac.sdsc.edu> References: <20021213215759.GC2175@lenny.anarcat.ath.cx> <hfk7i51wmg.fsf_-_@multivac.sdsc.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello!
I've committed a set of patches to the libh source tree to make
libh link against rhtvision while tvision doesn't compile in -current.
I didn't touch the parts of Hui you committed (lib/Hui, lib/HuiTv, lib/HuiQt).
I don't like rhtvision very much. It links against X11 which defeats its
purpose completely, IMHO. As much as we can, we should try to stick with
tvision.
Also note the head of the Makefile.inc file:
.include "Makefile.version"
.if ${OSVERSION} < 500035
CC= gcc31
CXX= g++31
BUILD_DEPENDS+= gcc31:${PORTSDIR}/lang/gcc31
MAKE_ENV+= CC=${CC} CXX=${CXX}
.endif
So libh now compiles with GCC 3.1 by default. This is to make libh
compilable under -current. Alex and I worked out the transition pretty
smoothly.
Overall, I think we should develop under -current and keep -current as
the primary target system for libh, since libh isn't likely to be
deployed on the (soon to be retired) -stable branch. However, I've been
saying that'd be switching to -current for months without doing it by
lack of time. :)
I'm ambivalent WRT Qt. I guess we should follow the trend and upgrade. I
don't think creating a slave static port for qt3 should be much of a problem.
As an aside, we shouldn't technically need the static Qt libraries to
statically link against it. We should fix dynamic linking instead of
looking at static Qt. But this is just wishing. :)
Max, if you've got patches to make tvision compile under -current, I'm
pretty sure ports@freebsd.org would be interested. Alex could probably
commit them if they get approved.
In other words, no one is maintaining tvision. We could assume
maintainership since we're pretty much the only consumers of the port. :)
I'd be curious to see if libh could compile against a shared qt. I know
that it used to need the static port, but I'm not sure it's still true.
I don't have much time to work on libh these days. I'll be leaving town
for 2 weeks on december 23rd but I'll probably take a look at all this
after. :)
Cheers!
A.
On Thu Dec 19, 2002 at 02:17:59PM -0800, Max Okumoto wrote:
>
> What are peoples build enviornments for libh?
>
> Right now I am on the follownig:
> OS FreeBSD4.7
> compiler gcc2.95.4
> libs:
> qt2-static (gcc2.95.4)
> qt23 (gcc2.95.4)
> tvision-0.8 (gcc2.95.4)
>
> alt setup on same machine (build in subdir of my libh directory)
> qt2-static (gcc32)
> qt23 (gcc32)
> tvision-0.8 (gcc32)
>
> I have compiled gcc32 and have built the other libraries, but
> have run into problems with conflicts
>
> qt30 can not build with qt23 installed
> (Note: qt30 in ports only builds a share library)
>
> tvision-0.8 does not compile with gcc32.
> (Note; I have a patch for this... but I have not done
> extensive tests with it yet.)
>
>
> Are we planning on going to qt30 and how are we going to handle the
> share vs static linking issue?
>
> Do we want our own copy of tvision until I can find who maintains the
> ports version. Or are we planing on moving to rhtvision? Do we
> want to GPL libh?
>
> So what are you guys using/not using?
>
> Max Okumoto
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-libh" in the body of the message
>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-libh" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021220220625.GD58708>